> Scott wrote: > 1) We must reduce the levels of CO2 emissions to a level that the > current mechanisms can process. > 2) We must replenish the forests and plant life which we have destroyed, > in order to set the balance right again, >
ehhhhh ... This is where I'm on Robert's side. I take a risk-based approach to GW. I don't think anything is proven or that we understand enough to know that any particular action is the right one. That being said, we need to buy insurance. We need to spend a couple billion, hell let's say a Trillion, as a globe on research. In the mean time, we need to, as a globe make a best guess on cause, and then take action but not extreme action to counter. It's insurance. You don't know if a fire will destroy your house. It *probably* never will. But you still expend resources to protect yourself against it amongst many other threats. We need to the same with GW. CO2 may be the problem. It may not. But we need to expend resources to protect ourselves against those threats. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283032 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
